HRES-1166-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Sponsored by Anna Luna (R-FL)
What it does
This resolution would expel Representative Eric Swalwell from the United States House of Representatives under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution. It cites allegations — reported on April 10, 2026 — that Swalwell engaged in a sexual relationship with a former congressional staffer, including an allegation that he engaged in sexual activity with her while she was too intoxicated to consent, a matter referred to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The resolution also cites Swalwell's public acknowledgment of "mistakes in judgment" and his suspension of his California gubernatorial campaign as supporting grounds for expulsion.
Who benefits
Congressional staffers and employees who may benefit from a signal that members of Congress face serious consequences for alleged misconduct involving subordinates. Constituents of California's 14th Congressional District who support the action. Advocates for workplace accountability in Congress. The sponsor and co-sponsors politically. Potentially, the broader public if the action is seen as reinforcing institutional integrity standards.
Who is hurt
Representative Swalwell, who would lose his elected office based on allegations that have not resulted in a criminal conviction or completed ethics investigation. Constituents of California's 14th Congressional District who support Swalwell and would lose their elected representative. Voters broadly, whose choice of representative would be overridden by a House vote. Due process advocates concerned about expulsion preceding the conclusion of any criminal or ethics proceeding. Members of Congress who may view the resolution as a precedent for politically motivated expulsion efforts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that House Rule XXIII requires members to "behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House," and that the allegations — including a criminal referral to the Manhattan District Attorney — represent a serious breach of that standard. They contend that Swalwell's own public acknowledgment of "mistakes in judgment" and his withdrawal from the California governor's race demonstrate the gravity of the conduct, and that Congress has both the constitutional authority and institutional responsibility to act without waiting for external proceedings to conclude.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expelling a member based on unproven allegations — before any criminal conviction or completed House Ethics Committee investigation — sets a dangerous precedent that bypasses due process and could be weaponized for partisan purposes. They contend that the Constitution's expulsion power has historically been reserved for the most extreme, proven misconduct, and that the Ethics Committee referral process exists precisely to evaluate such allegations before the full House acts; proceeding ahead of that process undermines the institutional safeguards the House itself established.
Constitutional context
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 explicitly grants each chamber the power to expel a member by a two-thirds vote, with no enumerated limitations on grounds. The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the substantive standards required for expulsion, leaving the House broad discretion, though due process considerations under the Fifth Amendment may be raised in any legal challenge.
Checks and balances
The House gains the authority to remove one of its own members; the primary check is the two-thirds supermajority vote required by Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, which is designed to prevent simple majority expulsions. The Ethics Committee referral process serves as a procedural check, though it is not constitutionally required before a floor vote.
Historical precedent
The House has expelled five members in its history: three in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy, one in 1980 (Michael Myers, for bribery in the Abscam scandal), and one in 2002 (James Traficant, following a federal criminal conviction); all prior expulsions involved either proven criminal conduct or wartime disloyalty, not unresolved allegations.